Page 1 of 1
What about NFB threads to cite in the FAQ
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 8:01 am
by ataloss
What threads could be of use to newcomers?
I would prefer to stay away from any that consist of ranting about some other board.
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 3:30 pm
by ataloss
or even threads to keep handy for non-newcomers
I looked at the reversion to mean thread
http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=324#p324
but it isn't the same w/o the graphics
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 3:51 pm
by karma
Well, there is always gummy's url:
http://home.golden.net/~pjponzo/gummy_stuff.htm
And dory's calculator (yes, dory is a man. A dory is a kind of boat.)
http://www.early-retirement.org/fire/
dory's retire early homepage:
http://www.early-retirement.org/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl
And if it isn't too offputting (and I don't know why it should be) - John Greaney's homepage:
http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/
And taxes! I'll think about that tomorrow.
karma
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 3:15 am
by WiseNLucky
What threads could be of use to newcomers?
I would prefer to stay away from any that consist of ranting about some other board.
I don't see why someone couldn't cut and paste from existing threads to create new threads that contain only the meat from important posts and leaves out the chaff. ES could then "close" the post so no one else could post to it. That way we could create a series of threads that could be assembled into a FAQ.
Am I thinking wrong? It sure seems like this would work. We could essentially create a group of tutorials on whatever topic we like.
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 4:19 am
by ataloss
wnl, great idea
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 11:51 am
by ataloss
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 5:05 am
by ataloss
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 5:08 am
by ataloss
I don't see why someone couldn't cut and paste from existing threads to create new threads that contain only the meat from important posts and leaves out the chaff.
I don't think jwr and hocus would like my idea of chaff (5000 word rants mentioning intercst a dozen times.
) Indeed, jwr has taken great offense at my withdrawal of the offer made to link to the good hocus posts from tmf- An offer extended to no other poster
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 5:25 am
by wanderer
ataloss -
be sure to include a link to the locked thread.
also, please make sure there is a link to your posts, around the time preceding Ed Easterling's visit, citing evidence that hocus definitely didn't 'know it all' from the beginning.
Your clarification of matters caused hocus great mortification, but I considered it a public service (rather than the entire community being embarassed by his inaccurate pronouncements).
Oh, before hocus cries 'smear: his confusing real return with SWR, hocus' confusion over what William Bernstein was asserting with mathematical certitude, hocus' assertion that he was the first to marry SWRs and valuation, and his assertion that thread disruption only came from the anti-valuation crowd have been demonstrated to be objectively false (or 'invalid', if anyone prefers).
does hocus realize his bizarre approach to building a case now has me actually
defending the rehp approach? Good lord!
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 10:12 am
by hocus
Does hocus realize his bizarre approach to building a case now has me actually defending the rehp approach? Good lord!
It's a curious turn of events, Wanderer.
But enough words have been spilled on this for the time-being.
Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2003 2:37 am
by ataloss
Hi wanderer, I have been reluctant to put in links to some of those threads. Although jwr and hocus would disagree (by definition) I am trying not to be unnecessarily argumentative.
I will respond to hocus and I am working on another generic hocus post.
I am particularly interested in the planned faq for the swr research board. I was wondering if it will include some sort of pledge that prospective posters there need to make before participation
. More than one poster has mistakenly assumed that they could express opinions